IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-03.09.2025 CRM-M-16943-2024 Pritpal Singh @ Preet ......Petitioner.

Vs.

State of Punjab ......Respondent.

AND CRM-M-29887-2025 Bahadur Singh @ Lovedeep Singh ......Petitioner.

Vs.

State of Punjab ......Respondent.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present:- Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate with Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate for the Petitioner (in CRM-M-16943-2024).

Mr. Lalit Singla, Advocate &

Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner (in CRM-M-29887-2025).

Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the Complainant.

***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL By this common order I shall dispose of both the aforementioned petitions as the same have arisen out of one and the same FIR.

2. The prayer in both these petitions under Section 439 Cr.PC is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.38 dated 06.04.2022 under Sections 302, 148, 149 and 34 IPC and Section 25, 27 & 30 of Arms Act, 1954 registered at Police Station Urban Estate Patiala, District Patiala.

3. The brief facts of the case are that statement of one Jugandeep Singh was recorded to the effect that he had graduated from Khalsa College, Patiala in 2018. One Harvir Singh was the president of Student Organization in Punjabi University, Patiala. Prior to the occurrence a quarrel had taken place between him(complainant) and Harvir Singh. On 5.4.2022 while he (complainant) was standing in front of Butter Stup Pizza Hut restaurant then Harvir Singh along with Tejinder Singh Fauji came there and started abusing him. Thereafter Harvir Singh left the place on his motor cycle and came back on motor cycle accompanied by two persons namely Bonny and Harman. On seeing them he (complainant) stayed in his car parked nearby. Thereafter Harvir, Tejinder Singh, Bonny and Harman surrounded his car. Harvir was holding a pistol in his hands and started threatening him. On seeing the altercation his (complainant's) friend Gurjinder Singh the owner of the restaurant called Dharminder Singh @ Bhinda his (complainant's) friend, who tried to convince Harvir Singh and his companions. After sometime, Tejinder Singh Fauji raised a lalkara that they be not spared. Thereafter Tejinder Singh Fauji, Harvir Singh, Bonny and Harman started firing shots with their pistols and they (complainant party) started running to save themselves. Then Harvir Singh fired a shot towards Dharaminder Singh which struck his back and he fell into an empty plot. On his (complainant's) screaming many people came out of the PG accommodations situated near the spot after which the accused ran away.

Dharminder Singh died due to a gunshot injury.

4. The Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have not been named in the FIR but only in the supplementary statement of complainant- Jugandeep Singh. Complainant-Jugandeep Singh has been examined as PW- 1. In his cross examination, while looking at the video of the place of the occurrence, he has admitted that the petitioners were not visible in the same but they were present at the spot. As they are in custody since 09.04.2022 but only 02 of the 33 Pws have been examined so far, the Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, they are entitled to the concession of bail.

5. The Counsel for the State and the counsel for the complainant on the other hand contend that though the petitioners are not named in the FIR, they are named in the supplementary statement of the complainant. The nature of the allegations levelled against them do not entitle them to the concession of bail. However, they concede that the petitioners are in custody since

09.04.2022 and that only 02 of the 33 Pws have been examined so far.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners are not named in the FIR but in the supplementary statement of the complainant. Their culpability